With more than 560 physicians surveyed, over 70% “indicated that e-cigs can help patients reduce or eliminate smoking” and “almost half believe they can reduce risk” according to a new survey by Andrew Nickels, M.D. called “Majority of US doctors discussing electronic cigarettes with their patients”.

Patients in the United States have been inundated with bias information and opinions by health officials with false or manipulated data. Physicians MUST take an active role to understand the difference between combustible tobacco and e-cigs to advise their patients correctly.

This is not the first survey to ask professionals what they thought about vaping products. Participation was significantly lower in a survey I conducted with 84 professionals – but the consensus was very similar.

• 85% said they are safer than combustible cigarettes.
• 77% will tell patients an e-cigarette is an option.
• 63% would definitely recommend e-cigarettes
• 17% are cautious
• 6% would never recommend e-cigarettes.

If you’re interested, that survey is here

Fail, Fail Again: The stop smoking motto:

Organizations that are representing themselves as “stop smoking” services all say the same thing. “Keep trying“.

Physicians are well aware of failure rates as high as 93% with nicotine patch and gums, and multiple risks are involved for patients with prescriptions like the once “black-boxed” (now irresponsibly removed) Chantix and other medications.

Now it seems they are listening to successes of some patients and passing on the knowledge they gain, “anecdotal” or not, to others.

Success isn’t hard to find

Success is glaringly obvious in surveys of vapers where “79% had completely quit smoking cigarettes” (here)  and 42% stopped in one day – 75% stopped within a month  here.

What about addiction to nicotine?

All health organizations falsely portray “nicotine” as “addictive”, a worn out and common “misdiagnosis” from folks who should know better, and is rarely questioned.

Pharmaceutical companies certainly are an ambitious lot – they created the “nicotine is addictive” myth out of thin air along with anti-smoking zealots to sell products. Stanton Glantz supports the pharmaceutical companies and makes things up as he goes along, and gets paid to do so.

Without tobacco and the accompanying MAOI’s and ingredients added to cigarettes, nicotine itself is not addictive, in humans, without it.

If the data contradict the theory, throw out the data

Public health organizations and government sing the same song:

The global public health establishment now dances to the tunes the pharmaceuticals play:

1. Increase tobacco taxes to make the price of the pharmaceutical products more competitive with tobacco products.
2. Demonize the tobacco industry and prohibit the advertising of their products.
3. Enact smoking bans to force smokers either to attempt to give up smoking using the pharmaceuticals’ products or to use “nicotine replacement” products as substitutes for when they cannot smoke.
4. Promote smoking cessation and “treatment” for nicotine addiction.
5. Promote full coverage for treatment of nicotine addiction by public and private health insurers.

All these strategies are guaranteed to increase the pharmaceuticals’ profits.

That and much more can be found in “Big Drug’s Nicotine War” By Wanda Hamilton

I haven’t been shut up yet. I am looking forward to it.

What is long term?

At this point, professionals in the U.S. who claim they “do not know enough” or don’t know the “long term effects” are unacceptable and unprofessional.

What is your definition of a long-term study?

We know long term

Dr. Cranfield explains the health effects of users over three years.

Users showed a 96% reduction in adverse health problems by users of three or more years. Conditions such as heart disease, high blood pressure and asthma improved by 61.8%

Conditions such as heart disease, high blood pressure and asthma improved by 61.8% of those diagnosed with those health issues while they smoked.

His study is here:

Health Effects and Demographics of Electronic E-cigarette Users. A Comparison Health Events in Previous Smokers with Three or More Years of Electronic E-cigarette Experience

Are there risks involved?

Yes. Of course there are. Nothing is risk-free. In comparison to combustible tobacco, e-cigarettes are about MUCH less risk. MUCH less harm.

Leading the world to less harm in the case of e-cigarettes, less risk, is Cardiologist Konstantinos E Farsalinos

He has plenty of studies here.

He talks about them on his blog here:

Ecigarette-Research.Org

Implications of manipulation

What are implications to withholding information from those who need it?

There’s no reason to ignore e-cigarettes, or less harm, to patients (or the public). When science and facts are ignored, people will still take advice to use the patch, gum and other “traditional” methods. When those methods fail, they will still use combustible tobacco. They will continue to smoke – because facts about e-cigarettes were ignored.

Withholding differential risk information on legal consumer nicotine/tobacco products: The public health ethics of health information quarantines

THIS

is what is on a street from the Leicester Stop Smoking Service in Leicester, England.

Leicester Stop Smoking Service:

• Ecigs don’t contain the tar and carbon monoxide that lit cigarettes do, and are therefore much safer than smoking

• There is no evidence that ecigs are encouraging people to go back to smoking, in fact the opposite is true; seeing people use ecigs seems to encourage others to consider switching to a safer alternative

That is here.

They are STILL ignoring e-cigarettes in the United States here:

Just this week:

Why Are U.S. Health Officials Ignoring U.K. Colleagues about E-Cigs?

And here:

Study Confirms Health Advantages of Vaping – Why do U.S. officials insist on obscuring them?

AND here:

Why Vaping is Safer in the UK than in the US

Professionals DO exist

M.O.V.E. is “Medical Organizations supporting Vaping and Electronic cigarettes”.

Medical Professionals Support Vaping And Electronic Cigarettes:

Denial of scientific evidence is unethical, wrong for public health.

The organization states:

“the use of electronic cigarettes clearly has huge potential to help many smokers turn their backs on tobacco.”

---

Focusing their attention squarely on e-cigarettes, they have a simple position on other cessation methods, stating “Unfortunately, currently available smoking cessation medications have limited efficacy and acceptability for the majority of smokers”.

(That article is here)

According to the M.O.V.E. Website:

• It is the combustion of tobacco and the 4000 chemical substances that are produced when smoking cigarettes that are harmful to health of smokers, not the nicotine.

• The dangers of electronic cigarettes are considerably lower than those of tobacco. From analysis of the constituents of e-cigarette vapour, e-cigarettes can be expected to be at least 95 to 99% safer than smoking tobacco cigarettes in terms of long-term health risks.

If you are in the medical, research or scientific fields…Doctors, Nurses, E.M.T.’s Physicians Assistants, Researchers, Dentists, Psychologists and more are members.

If you are a professional and have questions, message me here. I can get you in touch with these professionals online. I’ll get you where you need to go.

You are welcome to join M.O.V.E. and show your support here:

M.O.V.E.

Final thoughts

The potential to reduce combustible tobacco with the use of e-cigs is being fought for, and against, and is here to stay.

The public must have the opportunity to choose a less harmful product with much lower risk and obvious benefit and hear professional views derived from research and science. They are confronting their doctors. They are trying to gain insight from who they trust.

While attitudes abroad look at research and less risk, health “organizations” in the U.S.A. are still insisting they don’t know enough. This has to stop.

You can go to these resources to expand your knowledge about e-cigarettes.

• American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association (AEMSA)
• American Vaping Association
• CASAA – The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
• NOT BLOWING SMOKE
• Right to be Smoke-Free Coalition
• Smoke Free Alternatives Trade Association SFATA
• The Vaping Militia
• Vapor Technology Association

This short film, at the moment

is considered a “tobacco product”.

NCSCT unable to promote pro-vaping movie on Facebook because it is considered a tobacco product

Please visit

A Billion Lives

August8th.org

E-cigarette NEWS you can use… every day ~ Monday thru Friday ~ is here from my friends across the pond at Vapers.org.uk.

• E-cigarette Research is HERE.
• MORE e-cigarette research is also HERE.

If you are a Professional,  go HERE.

You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook

You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter

You can also find me on LinkedIn

More to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin